Canon officially announces the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,555
7,339
Very true, but I’d still rather slap $50 on the price of every non-L lens and have them all weather sealed.
But 90 or 99% might not prefer that. Which Canon knows and is why they make these decisions.
Exactly. Non-L lenses are frequently paired with non-pro bodies with reduced or no weather sealing. L lenses are frequently paired with pro-level bodies with more effective weather sealing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Memdroid

EOS 90D
Nov 12, 2013
168
88
I was really excited for this lens until I watched this guys review :
I don't speak/understand french but from what I could understand, this lens also has heavy corrections applied to it. That barrel distorten and heavy vignetting and the smearing near the borders are kind of off putting.
It looks like it is not as stellar IQ wise as the magnificent 35mm 1.8 (price vs performance). Bummer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

SHAMwow

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
106
169
Any movement on a RF 35mm L lens? Probably going to wait and buy that. Just put the money from the 24mm towards that.
 

David_E

Macrophotography
Sep 12, 2019
216
325
www.flickr.com
I like the size, I'm no longer comfortable packing my big L lenses around.
Tell me about it! 78 yrs old. Gave away my 5D4 (but kept my 6DII) when I got my R5. About to give away my EF 100-400 zoom. I do mainly macro work at home and in the field with the RF 100mm and the EF 180mm, I'm always looking for a good light macro lens. No more gigantic, expensive lenses for me. I have pre-ordered the 24mm macro from Adorama.

Butterfly: RF 100mm macro. Flicker: RF 800mm ƒ11 hand-held.
 

Attachments

  • Atalopedes campestris, Sachem Skipper-1.jpg
    Atalopedes campestris, Sachem Skipper-1.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 10
  • Colaptes auratus, Northern Flicker.jpg
    Colaptes auratus, Northern Flicker.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 10
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
I was really excited for this lens until I watched this guys review :
I don't speak/understand french but from what I could understand, this lens also has heavy corrections applied to it. That barrel distorten and heavy vignetting and the smearing near the borders are kind of off putting.
It looks like it is not as stellar IQ wise as the magnificent 35mm 1.8 (price vs performance). Bummer.
Thanks, I just switched on auto-translate to English subtitles.

From what I could understand:
  • lens has vignetting which disappears when stopped down to f/4,
  • centre sharpness good at f/1.8 and marginally better at f/4,
  • the edges are not acceptable in sharpness until aperture of f/2.8, and sharp at f/5.6
  • bokeh is very good, without outlining, and rather clean but not round, with chromatic abberation around the edges
  • auto focus is not as fast as a USM motor lens and misses focus on very fast moving subjects, otherwise focus is very good for photos and video, though lens has visible focus breathing
  • lens flare is reasonable
  • lens displays some chromatic abberation, but not as bad as seen on the RF 16mm f/2.8
  • The lens does have barrel distortion that is corrected (not sure of the extent of the correction, it wasn't explained)
  • Sunstars can be produced at f/8 and look excelelnt at f/16
  • Not good for astrophotography, lots of CA at f/1.8 in the centre and strong/extreme coma at the edges of the frame along with lack of sharpness/optical defects
The barrel distortion of the lens is shown in the screen shot below.

1657876092662.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
ps, Canon's own generated MTF charts, corrected for diffraction, are about as good as any guide. But, all that counts is how good is your copy on your camera, which will depend on copy variation of the lens and the conditions you use. The charts show the RF-S 18-150 is sharper at 18mm and it's the lens itself, not software correction. The RF-S 18-150 is very good value as part of a kit with the R7 and R10.

View attachment 204626 View attachment 204627
The charts on TDP taken with the 32MB RF body should be resolving more detail than the 20MP EF body though, is that correct?
It look like the and the MTF charts show the same thing I stated, the 18-150 is sharper at 18mm, though I saw the charts sharper alt longer focal lengths.
Without side by side testing on an R7 body using an adapted EF 18-135, it's hard to tell if there is a net loss or net gain here, and what Canon has given up so to be able to sell the lens at $100 less than its predecessor. This is just a matter of curiosity for me , as I have neither of these lenses or an R7 body.
 
Feb 7, 2019
409
475
UK
Tell me about it! 78 yrs old. Gave away my 5D4 (but kept my 6DII) when I got my R5. About to give away my EF 100-400 zoom. I do mainly macro work at home and in the field with the RF 100mm and the EF 180mm, I'm always looking for a good light macro lens. No more gigantic, expensive lenses for me. I have pre-ordered the 24mm macro from Adorama.

Butterfly: RF 100mm macro. Flicker: RF 800mm ƒ11 hand-held.
You’re giving it away!? Hey, if you don’t want it anymore I’ll happily take it off your hands! Haha

Beautiful shots by the way!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,126
16,197
The charts on TDP taken with the 32MB RF body should be resolving more detail than the 20MP EF body though, is that correct?
It look like the and the MTF charts show the same thing I stated, the 18-150 is sharper at 18mm, though I saw the charts sharper alt longer focal lengths.
Without side by side testing on an R7 body using an adapted EF 18-135, it's hard to tell if there is a net loss or net gain here, and what Canon has given up so to be able to sell the lens at $100 less than its predecessor. This is just a matter of curiosity for me , as I have neither of these lenses or an R7 body.
All things being equal, yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Aug 7, 2018
461
408
I can't understand distortion at a prime lens, Those lenses only have to be optimized for a single focal length. So all distortion could be corrected with the right optical formula. It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,555
7,339
It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.
It doesn't just seem that way, it IS that way. Canon even said so, explicitly. Check the press release for the RF 16/2.8, where they state, “Long gone are the days of optical corrections…”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,462
958

Unless the RF version allows use of a drop-in filter, the adapted EF version is more useful, and will almost certainly be cheaper, too.
I'd agree. Alternative filter options a ridiculous in size. It's a lens that can take pretty interesting images but its heavy, chunky size wise with a scary bulbous front. I end up not using it very often. I wouldn't personally recommend it unless you have everything and wanted something different.
 

PiezoSwitch

EOS M50
Aug 22, 2019
31
46
Here in Canada the new 15-30 is almost 3x the price of the RF 14-35L so it will be interesting to see how much of a difference there is in terms of optical performance. A key characteristic for me will be at what focal length the maximum aperture begins to decrease.
 
Jul 23, 2020
2
1
I've developed some blind faith in Canon's RF line of lenses. I love the 35 f1.8 and the 85 f2. Both of those lenses produce beautiful, punchy photos. I pre-ordered the 24mm.

To correct for barrel distortion optically some other aspect of lens performance must be compromised. Maybe the digital solution results in superior images? Maybe if they leave the barrel distortion, they can focus on sharpness, bokeh, contrast, and other optical qualities? I'll be happy if this new 24mm produces images on par with the RF 35mm and 85mm, and I'm fairly confident that it will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
I can't understand distortion at a prime lens, Those lenses only have to be optimized for a single focal length. So all distortion could be corrected with the right optical formula. It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.
It's Canon penny-pinching again, save a few dollars on production but don't lower the price equals more profits. Same idea with no lens hoods on non-L lenses, even if they sell for $1000 (like they do in some parts of the world), they won't give you that $5 piece of plastic. Over millions of units sold the pennies quickly add up, that's the reasoning. The problem with excessive software correction (depending on the type) is that it's destructive at the pixel level, degrades image quality, introduces more noise, and limits the post processing that can be carried out afterwards. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
I've developed some blind faith in Canon's RF line of lenses. I love the 35 f1.8 and the 85 f2. Both of those lenses produce beautiful, punchy photos. I pre-ordered the 24mm.

To correct for barrel distortion optically some other aspect of lens performance must be compromised. Maybe the digital solution results in superior images? Maybe if they leave the barrel distortion, they can focus on sharpness, bokeh, contrast, and other optical qualities? I'll be happy if this new 24mm produces images on par with the RF 35mm and 85mm, and I'm fairly confident that it will.
Hi David, we were having a chat on another thread about these lenses, I too find the RF 35mm f/1.8 sharp and versatile, and from discussions bokeh is good as long as focus point is 3m or less, otherwise the backround gets gets busy.

I've been conflicted about getting an RF 85mm f/2, it's a very sharp lens with great contrast according to reviews, but backgrounds tend to get busy and bokeh is sub-par apparently. I thought it may make a great product photography lens, but I'm not sure if I would gain much over the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses (L and regular, have both). May I ask, what have you been using yours for, and how have you been finding it? Hearing about first hand experience is really valuable! Thanks :)
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
The optical bench test results are in for the RF 24mm f/1.8 macro IS STM lens on the Photons to Photos website, and the distortion figures don't look good, rectilinear distortion is 11%, which is a very high.


A note for the posters who didn't get my point about rounded off values for marketing, yes, it measures as a 25mm f/1.85 on the test bench. ;)


By comparison, the RF 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear distortion is a whopping 17%

By comparison the RF 35mm f/1.8 macro rectilinear distortion is a only 3%

The nifty-fifty RF 50mm f/1.8 rectilinear distortion is the lowest at a mere 1%

Comparing witht some other EF and RF wide lenses:

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8: rectilinear distortion 3%

Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8 L III: rectilinear distortion 4%
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L: rectilinear distortion 4%
Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8 L: rectilinear distortion 4%

Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L: rectilinear distortion 10%
Canon RF 24-240 F/4-6.3: rectilinear distortion 13%

I'm really loving all the fanboy doublethink on DPR trying to justify Canon's heavy reliance on software correction, making senseless illogical statements such as "these are designed to be used with software correction", which is marketing nonsense, made to sound like software corrections are a desirable thing, and these lenses were successfully designed to that purpose! Properly phrased, it would be stated as "these lenses are intentionally optically under-designed, and this compromise requires software corrections to make the images usable". But people can twist reality to fit their worldview and rationalise anything, rather than have to change their worldview to fit reality... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users